jacks81x said:
Well, the courts did get involved with the whole steroid scandal in baseball a few years back. I agree with what Mark Cuban said about the slippery slope that forcing Sterling to sell the team would cause. A person has the right to be a moron or a bigot. What he says in the privacy of his own home is his own business. If the NBA sets this precendance to kick him out because of his personal beliefs, then what's next? Another owner gets kicked out when he was secret taped saying he's against gay marriage? If the NBA supports diversity, they should support the diversity of personal beliefs that exist in this country as well. Otherwise they're no different than a totalitarian or communist government. It's one thing if he had made these statements publicly at a press conference representing the Clippers organization, but to condemn him for something he said in private seems to be highly hypocritical for what the NBA is trying to promote. |
That's precisely why it takes a 3/4 super majority vote by the owners, in order to do it. Because it's meant to be a last resort. There are plenty of examples where people say stuff or do things that end up reaching the public sphere, and gets them fired. The woman who took a picture of herself flipping off the sign for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, while on a business trip, got fired. Or that woman who made some twitter remark about Africa and HIV (while on her way to Africa), who got fired before she even got off the plane.
It's nothing new, we've seen people get fired for much less egregious actions. Just hasn't been done with an owner before. Additionally, this wasn't a secret taping, recheck the facts. Sterling knew he was being recorded. That he didn't have firm control over those tapes is his fault, not the leagues, not the clippers, not the media.
We may not think it's ok for companies to fire an employee or a league to fire an employee for their personal beliefs, but, that's entirely up to the company. Companies usually don't, unless you allow your embarassing personal information to be leaked into the public sphere. Then the company has to take action, because it now starts effecting their image bottom dollar, and it had already begun for the Clippers org. Given that the Clippers lost like 5 big sponsors, simultaneously, it shouldn't be difficult at all to prove in court that his comments were detrimental to the NBA. So, provided Silver and the ownership group has the 75%+ in hand, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to force him out.
As far as setting a precedent, it seems part of big business already to me. Anything that can tarnish, hurt, harm, or ruin your companies reputation, make sponsors/investors hesistent to join in, and make fans stop watching etc... is actionable.
| Kasz216 said: Because it's very standard legal precedence. If you are fighting a fine like that, generally any penalty for not paying that fine is on hold. Think about if that wasn't the case... If your just an average guy and you sign a contract like that, they could fine you basically fine you for all the money you have. Making it impossible for you to even put up a legal defense. It'd be carte blanche for companies to ruin ANYBODY for any reason because nobody would ever have the resources to fight huge unreasonable fines.
Hell, look at the Bundy Ranch thing. Your aware of that. It took the feds forever to act, specifically because he kept taking them to court, meaning their fines kept getting delayed until all legal recource was exhuasted. |
Ok, I understand what you're saying about the fine.
Any average person can get thrown out of a private club, it happens all the time, and yes, for making the club look bad, or behaving in a manner that clashes with the clubs image etc... I also don't see it as very likely that the contracts your average joe signs, bare any resemblance to signing onto the NBA Constitution. Most contracts that I've ever signed don't have sections telling me that a Commissioner has the authority to fine me up to 2.5 million dollars, and any penalty he deems fit for any situation not specifically mentioned in the by-laws (Most average people aren't voted in by the owners of the company either).
The Bundy Ranch thing, is the Government's case against a person. This is a Private entities action against one of it's members, that would then be that member suing the private entity. Look at how fast it took the courts to deal with A-Rods situation. Relatively speaking, that was lightyears ahead of Bundy's case. I would think that the court getting too involved would set an even bigger precedent, don't you think?
